OK, hi guys, this first post is just to give you guys a quick summary we need to have for the blog discussion. Your first post should have:
1. A definition of stability in a society
2. Your stand on the motion, 'Democracy creates stability in a society'
3. Your reasoning on why you have such a stand.
Please provide examples to support each reason too, so that we can refer to it.
After your first post, you can send out more posts to contribute more points, or to clarify each other's points, so that everyone can do a good essay!
Tak Wei
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
OK. Let me as the host set the ball rolling.
I believe that a stable society is a society that is unthreatened by any hazards that would have any possible negative impact on it. As the question does not state any particular area that the society would be stable in, I assume that it means that all aspects of a society has to be stable for the motion to stand true. A society has mainly social, economical and political aspects to it, and if any of these aspects are to be threatened through democracy, then the motion would be false.
Well, I personally believe that a society can be stablised with democracy. However, democracy can be sub-divided into many different forms, such as direct, representative as well as many other minor forms, and each different form of democracy can result in different degrees of stability. One reason why I believe that democracy can stabilise a society is that democracy empowers people, giving them say to each law the government decides to pass. Through this people-government interaction, the laws eventually passed is to the people's satisfaction, and the people would not want to pass a law that puts them to a disadvantage. Therefore, any chance of a dissatisfaction due to a law that is not to the peoples' liking is cancelled out. This reason tends to be the reason why many past societies, which were dictatorships, were fallen. Why did Russia enter a era of Communism? It was because of the laws the Tsar passed without consulting the people first and this led to the people into poverty and being dissatisfied with the Tsar, they overthrew him in the end, making Lenin leader and the development of communism to begin. Having a democratic government, on the other hand, allows people to discuss the laws which would bring the society to greater heights, and no one should be dissatisfied with these laws, hence not threatening the stability of the society. Singapore is one good example to justify my point. It is to the world, a successful country, and why is it so? Based on the United Nations article provided, they justified it by saying Singapore discusses with its people the policies it implements, which led the society to success.
Hope you guys can carry on the arguement! (and please comment too, so that we can improve the arguement)
Just another two cents worth of my words!
Another side of the arguement is that diplomacy is unable to create stability in a society. The idea of democracy is questioned in my arguement.
First of all, democracy aims for the power of authority and choice to be transferred and given to the people, and that everyone would be happy as they are free to discuss on issues and decide on policies. However, is everyone going to have their needs addressed? I believe not with a democratic government.
Take this situation for example. Several group, say 10%, want solution A to solve the problem and the other 85% wish to solve the problem with solution B, with the other 5% solution C. Which solution would you think the government will choose after seeing such a situation? It is highly likely to be solution B.
Take Malaysia for example. Even since before our merger in 1963, Malaysia has always been well known for its Pro-Malaysian policies, such as one of the Open University Malaysia, still in existence till today, where it introduces pro-malay policies which allow Malays to enter university easier. Due to the population being predominantly Malay, this has resulted in many conflicts and controversies over the years, as early as during our merger, where the PAP wanted a 'Malaysian Malaysia', rather than a 'Malay Malaysia'.
With conflict and controversies already, my first definition of a stable society is already shattered, where the society, in the Malaysia case, is already threatened socially. However, other scenarios similar to that of Malaysia would result in the minority, whose views were not expressed, to become angry at the government, questioning their ideas of democracy, which could develop into riots and demonstrations, which threaten the society socially and politically. Furthermore, if the riots and demonstrations continue, the society will also be threatened economically. My definition of a stable society would then be shattered, as the society is threatened socially, politically as well as economically
Post a Comment